论《易经》非占筮记录  

The Judgments and Line Statements of the Classic of Changes Are Not Individuated Records of Divination

作　　者：郑吉雄[1] 

机构地区：[1]台湾大学中文系

出　　处：《周易研究》2012年第2期24-32,共9页Studies of Zhouyi

摘　　要：自20世纪初古史辨运动兴起,易学界受科学主义思潮影响,多视"经"为卜筮记录,"传"为哲理新创,"经"与"传"必须分别而观,不可以以"经"释"传",亦不可以以"传"解"经"。本文列举九个论点,论证《易记》为政治典册,蕴含义理;《易传》义理之精义即多承继自"经"。《周易》"经""传"关系,一如父母子女之关系。父母之基因为子女所承继,"经"之基因亦为"传"所传承。"经"与"传"固有区别,就像父母子女各具独立人格。我们当然不应混"经""传"为一,但亦不宜认"经""传"为绝无关系之两种文献。Since the arising of the Gu shi bian or Debates on Ancient History movement from the beginning of 1920s on, influenced by the ＂scientific＂ spirit, the academic circle of the studies of Changes had tended to argue that the ancient Text （i. e. , judgments and line statements） of the Classic of Changes were but individuated records of divination and the Commentaries on it were attributed to philosophical creation and thus they should be distinguished respectively other than be mutually interpreted. This paper illustrates nine points to demonstrate that the ancient Text was a political document which conceives meanings and principles, and the subtleties of the meanings and principles of the Commentaries were by large inherited from the Text. The association between the Text and Commentaries just likes that between parents and children. As the genes of the parents are inherited by their children, the Text＇s genes were also succeeded by the Commentaries. Nonetheless, the Text and Commentaries differ intrinsically as parents and children possess independent personalities respectively. So, we should neither amalgamate them into one nor separate them into two documents without any relevance.

关 键 词：《易经》 《易传》 《周易》 经传分离 

分 类 号：B221[哲学宗教—中国哲学]